<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Motion # 1
To Todd and everyone else who has comments and suggestions: put them into
the form of an
amendment to an existing motion, or a new motion. Then the issue is defined
and can proceed.
Example: I believe it was Eric who had a possible list of purposes, and you
discuss the same,
so an "Amendment 1" to #1 would work for one of you, and "Amendment 2" to
#1 would work
for the other. If all of the purposes were ultimately deemed to be appropriate,
there might ultimately
be an "Amendment x" that accumulated all of them. Or who knows?
Others have suggested that the actual basis for the motion be spelled out
more completely, in
the form of whereas clauses. "(1) Whereas ICANN screwed up by . . . "; "Whereas
ICANN also
screwed up by . . . ."; and so on. There is also some sentiment for having
just a very slim version,
which I'll over simplify as "It is hereby moved that the DoC rebid the contract
with ICANN," or
words to that effect. All of these different suggestions are easily accommodated,
and we can get
down to the real nuts and bolts of selecting out what seems best, if those
who have these various
excellent suggestions would help Joanna by expressing them motion or amendment
form. That way
the matter is precisely defined, and a lot of bandwidth can be saved, even
by the following kind of
comment: "I believe #2 needs to be changed to include "blah blah blah" as
one of the whereas
clauses." Something like that could easily be included as a suggested amendment
to #2 and then be
allowd to run the gauntled accordingly.
Bill Lovell
todd glassey wrote:
011601c1f826$bbdb6d50$020aff0a@tsg1">
Karl - you are right about the conflict of interest for you here, but my
response to Joanna is that it also may not be fair or appropriate for anyone
at this time to take only one version of the proposed text and claim it is
***the*** motion and start a straw-poll on it to get its veracity when
people are not set on the language of the motion yet.
This is one of the problems with this and a number of the other lists that I
have spent time with, that it is essentially many fragmented voices and this
makes the value of such a 'niceified' request to be almost worthless at best
from what is essentially a disharmonized chorus, IMHO.
What needs to happen is that this WG needs to come to specific terms with
what it is trying to do... and state somewhere
1) The intent of the motion needs to be defined in very specific
terms (up at 200,000 feet); and
2) The process of how the Motion will be propagated
and to whom needs
to be worked out, because what you say in the motion is specific to whom we
send it to. (this is also at 200,000); and
3) Itemize in the Motion the specific complaints that need to be
addressed and why (this is the 100,000 foot view); and
4) And then submit a formal motion, petitioning for these changes.
(and finally this is the ground zero of the process)
No one sends anyone a letter "asking" for changes, they send petitions that
mandate something demonstrable. But they also have organizational backing
on the matter and what is here now is several different groups still
lobbying for language in the matter.
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Cc: "GA
List" <ga@dnso.org>; "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion # 1
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Joanna Lane wrote:
I'm a bit confused - are these 10 names to simply get this motion onto the
table so that it may be discussed and ultimately (perhaps) voted upon? Or
is this a vote on the motion itself?
I'm all for the former (i.e. putting it onto the table for discussion) and
if that's what we're doing then count me as a "yes".
But if we're talking about the merits of the motion itself - I'm not ready
to say yes or no. (In fact, because of my role within ICANN, I'll
probably abstain.)
--karl--
WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN)
has
dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is
proposing even further changes.
WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the
Internet
community and go even further from the original terms of reference.
WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
Commerce
(the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring,
and
alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources,
while
providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.
WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name Supporting
Organization
(the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper,
the
Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to
withdraw
from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting Organization of
Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US
Department of
Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by
ICANN,
provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an
international framework for DNS management. An open competition should
aim
to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS
services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom.
Agree [ ]
Disagree [ ]
Abstain [ ]
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|